White v. Johnson

• Citation: 146 S.E. 411
• Decision Date: 18 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 12565.)
• Parties: WHITE. v. JOHNSON et al., Spartanburg County Highway Commission.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

146 S.E. 411

WHITE.
v.
JOHNSON et al., Spartanburg County Highway Commission.

(No. 12565.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 18, 1929.

[146 S.E. 412]

necessary for proper construction and-maintenance of county highway, and, though it is not sole judge of necessity of case, it may exercise its discretion within reasonable limits, which will not be interfered with by courts, unless bad faith or abuse of discretion is shown.

Suit in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by W. J. White against B. W. Johnson, as Chairman, and others as members, of the Spartanburg County Highway Commission. Injunction refused, and complaint dismissed.

Lyles, Daniel & Drummond, of Spartanburg, for plaintiff.

Nicholls, Wyche & Byrnes, of Spartanburg, for defendants.

STABLER, J. This is an action brought in the original jurisdiction of the court for injunctive relief.

The facts of the case appear to be as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land, in Spartanburg county, fronting for a distance of approximately 3, 000 feet on the easterly side of state highway No. 56, leading from Pauline by way of Cross Anchor to the Laurens county line; this road is the property line separating plaintiff's lands from lands owned by Miller Bros, on the opposite side. The Spartanburg highway commission, composed of the defendants in this action, is vested by statute, with authority to locate or relocate and improve the roads of the county, and to condemn property for necessary rights of way and for construction materials. The commission has decided to partially relocate, widen, and surface treat highway No. 56, and in so doing proposes to fix the width of the right of way at 60 feet, both where it follows the old highway and where it is relocated. It contemplates, however, building the traveled roadway, between outer side-ditch banks, only 36 feet wide, leaving, as a part of the right of way, uniform adjacent strips of the width of 15 feet on each side of the completed roadbed. The plaintiff is willing, and has agreed, to give whatever land may be necessary for the construction of the traveled roadway at any width determined upon, including the necessary sloping of cuts, toeing out of spilled fills, etc., but has declined the commission's request to convey to it a strip 33 feet wide, measuring from the center of the roadway back into his property, as this would take a strip of his land 15 feet wide not included in the actual traveled way. Of course, the commission expects to obtain...